The tenure albatross

The application of the tenure system to the top of the civil service has become an albatross around the neck of successive heads of the civil service, particularly at the federal level. I say the federal level deliberately because it is that service that always shows the way for the states and local governments to […]

The application of the tenure system to the top of the civil service has become an albatross around the neck of successive heads of the civil service, particularly at the federal level. I say the federal level deliberately because it is that service that always shows the way for the states and local governments to follow.

The tenure system of attaching fixed years to the top posts of the civil service is an idea that had been deemed desirable for decades and which had been applied with success in other sister services. In the security services, the army, for instance, tenure had been applied to most of the top ranks. It is a pity that attempts to apply it to the top ranks of the civil service have only met with sloppiness leading to understandable consequences and thus resistance. And that’s why when the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (HoSF) announced that the government had approved its reintroduction, there was a near-universal grunt of ugh, here we go again.  

Probably, it is this feeling of déjà vu that surrounds the whole matter of the tenure system that delays the implementation of the approval. It may not be. As someone explained to me that this HoSF knows her onions and is taking deliberate steps to avoid the past pitfalls. That probably explains why even though the decision was taken in January this year, the HoSF has been delaying its implementation.

The idea to adopt a tenure policy emerged from the Bureau of Public Service Reforms (BPRS) groundwork. The BPRS along with the Bureau for Public Enterprises (BPE), Bureau for Public Procurement (BPP) and a few others, was the creation of the Obasanjo administration in the heady days of the early 2000s to kick-start a series of reforms in the entire public service. The tenure policy was one of the reforms the BPRS considered to help prevent young workers who enjoyed rapid promotion to the rank of directors or permanent secretaries from overstaying resulting in the career stagnation of older civil servants. This resulted in clogging at the top and caused widespread frustration in the service, which in effect dwindled performances.

The reforms spearheaded by the BSPR introduced policies of four years of two terms for directors as well as permanent secretaries even if such directors and permanent secretaries were under 60 years and had served below 35 years in the civil service at the end of their terms. The new HoSF appointed in 2009 dusted the BPRS reform recommendations and got the Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC) on board to back him up when he sought for President Umaru Musa Ya’Adua’s endorsement to go ahead. The president was said to have made similar reforms when he was Katsina State governor and his mind was in tandem with these new proposals. The president gave his approval but unfortunately was never well enough to superintend the processes of implementation.

From my perspective, the implementation of the reform in 2009 and thereafter was a spectacular failure. Back then in 2009, the reform was hurriedly force-fed through the system by a HoSF who didn’t consult widely. And if he did, it would probably be with only a group of acolytes who in all circumstances would not spell out the grave implications of throwing out such large numbers of permanent secretaries and directors from the federal service at that time and on such short notice. The affected were given only three months’ notice to wind up their affairs and forcefully vacate their offices. After which there followed a whirlwind of activities to fill up the positions that would be vacated by the departing officers.

For some years thereafter, it was regular bedlam. The National Industrial Court and some other regular courts were besieged by litigants who were able to obtain judgments against the federal government. Many civil servants stayed put and refused to budge particularly in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I guess it was this confusion that the present government found subsisting in the service that made it put a stop to the shambolic implementation of the tenure policy in 2016.

Now that the government has decided that the tenure policy is worth its while and should be implemented, I suppose they would be mulling over the path to take. It will be necessary to take a good census of the number of directors and permanent secretaries that would be affected, and at what date. A sudden implementation of say within three months as the government did in 2009 would be deemed draconian and would cause undue anguish to the livelihood of the affected. Probably a plan to implement from a date after a year or so would be a middle ground that could be more reasonable.

An alternative viewpoint canvassed would ask the government to begin implementing the policy on those to be newly appointed as directors and permanent secretaries. The policy would reflect in their letters of appointment and would complement the other rules of retirement at 60 years of age and/or 35 years of service that have all the time been in the books. The present directors and permanent secretaries would then be allowed to fade out as and when due by their rules of engagement. I bet you that in a few years the system would stabilise.